Parents: Your Children Need Professors With Tenure - <AUTHOR> http://chronicle.com/article/Parents-Your-Children-Need/124776/

<comment><USER2> "Tenure doesn't guarantee that college teachers will be courageous. But it protects those who are."

This is the only argument given in the whole article. That teachers should be allowed to be outrageous and disrespectful because that somehow makes them better teachers.

There's a fine line to teaching kids to think critically and just being outrageous. Teachers without fear of crossing that line can do harm, too.

The whole argument is that teachers -can- be fired for things. Not that they -will- be. Good schools don't fire teachers for teaching children to think. If a school is inclined to fire teachers for that, tenure is not going to solve the problem. Is a teacher going to lay low for 7 years and then suddenly start teaching children to think? No. They'll have been doing it all along.

<comment><USER3> And this idea that "the 'deadwood' either retired or died years ago" is very false. I've met so many professors who were basically useless but couldn't be fired because they were tenured.

Ignoring the vitriol that Fox News loves to vomit to its loyal sheep, the teaching profession for some reason has been allowed to act completely cut off from the market as a whole. There are so many very good teachers who simply can't get a job because of the tenure lock-in. If a teacher isn't doing his / her job, they should be fired and replaced! It works for the rest of the economy why shouldn't it work for the teaching of our children?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'd love to see data that proves that administrative bloat is the money drain on education institutions.

Not that I doubt it - most of the workplaces I've seen are one or two fat cats sitting on top collecting big paychecks while a bunch of people doing actual work get a small fraction of what the top earner makes.

I also tend to think that most of the repetitive administrative tasks can be replaced with small, well written scripts...

<comment><USER5> There's been quite a bit written on this; try these two Google searches for a start:

[http://www.google.com/search?q=higher+education+bubble+admin...](http://www.google.com/search?q=higher+education+bubble+administrative+bloat)

[http://www.google.com/search?q=higher+education+bubble+admin...](http://www.google.com/search?q=higher+education+bubble+administrative+costs)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This reads like a refutation of Mark Taylor's "Crisis in Higher Education," a new book that holds tenure and the organization of academic departments largely responsible for the declining quality of American universities.

The Fox News angle that the writer leads off with is a giant red herring. The problems with tenure have little to do with professors' politics (since employees already have laws protecting them based on their political beliefs). It has more to do with paying professors millions of dollars in salary and benefits for decades after their most productive years have ended.

</comment><comment><USER7> there's something off about suggesting tenure is about teaching, or that universities are about students. Tenure is about, more than teaching style, research, and primarily, actual teaching is left to grad students and teacher's aides.</comment>


I hate living in my tiny house - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/90407740/why-i-hate-living-in-my-tiny-house <comment><USER2> Article's conclusions are dubious.

> We need ... different housing tech that can lower construction costs

If you're paying ~$1,600 a month for a shoebox apartment, it's not because you need construction technology. It is a housing-policy problem.

<comment><USER3> ...combined with a lifestyle choice problem. Hundreds of millions of other Americans do fine not living in the Bay Area.

<comment><USER4> This is a very valid point that almost nobody makes, and I still cannot understand why not. People screaming about how unaffordable the Bay Area is, seem to feel like living elsewhere would be some kind of death sentence.

<comment><USER5> I'm from the Bay Area. This is my hometown, going back 5 generations. What should I do? Move?

<comment><USER6> Oh man I feel so sorry for my artist friends who were forced out and can never move home again. One of them is slowly succumbing to depression due to ending up in Seattle and I really hope he can figure out how to get out of there before the winter blahs drive him to suicide.

<comment><USER7> Wow, Seattle! A punishment worse than death!

<comment><USER8> It isn't about the location, it is about being away from your family, your friends, and your community. That matters to some people.

<comment><USER5> Also 10 consecutive months of drab, gray skies and constant rain.

<comment><USER9> Eleven months! Don't move here.

<comment><USER10> You'd be more convincing if you said "Don't move there."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> In 2018, my middle school-aged son and I stayed in a small apartment in Taipei while he attended a Mandarin language program at a local university over the summer. It was located on the roof of a 10 story building, and was about 250 square feet. I had to fold up my sofa bed every morning (he had the loft) to make space in the main room. There was no indoor furniture except the sofa, so when we ate inside he usually sat on the stairs while I used a small plastic folding chair I bought at a night market.

Dealing with garbage was a constant issue. It just seemed to build up quickly and there was no place to keep it in the apartment. In terms of our belongings, if we had anything more than what fit in our suitcases and day packs there would have been a major problem with storage as there was only some small closet space and cubbyholes underneath the stairs. I did almost no cooking because cheap food options were nearby but it occurred to me that if I had been frying stuff on the little range, the smells from cooking would have pervaded everything.

ETA: I realize that many people live in far more cramped conditions all over the world, often with many family members or shared accommodations, and generally have no options to move into bigger quarters. But in the United States at least, I see the "small house" movement romanticizing the idea of compact living quarters while glossing over the drawbacks.

<comment><USER12> I think this is a factor that is often neglected or not even mentioned is articles espousing 'tiny homes'. The cooking. Even in our fairly large home, if I cook something even vaguely aromatic, the smell permeates through most of the house.

Maybe this is an indictment of the 'takeaway generation' that seems the norm in places like the US, where it is often cheaper and more convenient to order take out, rather than cook from scratch?

<comment><USER13> That smell is a good thing though, isn't it? If not, cook something else. Maybe don't cook liver with Limburger.

<comment><USER12> Whilst the smell _can_ be good in the sort term, over time, it can actually work against you. Trying to go to sleep with the delicious smell of baking bread through your sheets? Good luck with that :) Also, waking up first thing in the morning with the smell of last night's curry still in the air? Not the best.

If you burn milk or something else on the stove? Best leave the windows open and rent a hotel room to stay in for a few days!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Having unintentionally lived in a "tiny house" at university, never again. Mind you, it wasn't supposed to be a "tiny house", they had a rush remodel and half the apartment was rendered useless.

My wife (then girlfriend) and I agreed never to live in one again. Just this morning, we were reminiscing about how we used to have to get our utensils, then eat on the utensil box I made to hold them because we didn't have counter space. We also recalled the brick wall had a brick sticking out just slightly too far that you couldn't open the oven. So we had to file down the brick.

Just... just no. Give me my 2600+ square feet house any day.

The real trick is not living somewhere where you need that kind of housing. Outside of a submarine, there really is little reason.

I live in rural Illinois, make close to an SF salary, enjoy my 5 min commute, and pay less than this guy for a five bedroom house.

<comment><USER15> There's a wide variety of options between "tiny house" and 2,600 square feet. Many of the post world-war 2 era homes in my area are ~1,000 sq. ft. (+/\- 100 sq. ft). It's more than plenty for 2 people.

<comment><USER14> For reference, we have a roommate and two kids. Only one guest room left so pretty much a good fit.

Agreed 1000 sq. ft. Is great for two. Living in SF I had a 750 sq. Ft. Apartment with three people and it felt fine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If you don't want to live in a tiny house, then don't. It's good to have options for people who can't afford otherwise. Clearly the author of the article prefers living in Oakland (in a tiny house) to living somewhere cheaper in a larger house. The author explicitly states that they can't afford a larger apartment, but this is the tradeoff. There are tradeoffs in everything.

<comment><USER17> The primary cost in housing is not the size of the house, but the cost of land. I don't understand this tiny house obsession -- frankly condos are 'tiny houses' and they are mostly insanely priced in hot markets.

Tiny house is not a movement about affordability. It's an aesthetic movement. One mostly participated in by people of higher income.

<comment><USER18> Depends on where you are in the country, actually. In suburban areas of the midwest, the plot of land with a 3000 sqft house is much cheaper than the actual house.

I don't think tiny house is black-and-white 0% about affordability and 100% about aesthetics. To me it's basically a way for people who perceive themselves as middle class to live cheaply in housing that is a step above trailers, and it's caused by the very high rents in certain urban areas like Toronto, Seattle, and the bay area. You probably don't see a lot of millenials living in tiny houses in Des Moines, Iowa or Cincinnati, Ohio.

Also, not sure how familiar you are with the bay area housing issue, but a lot of it is due to lack of supply + zoning. The state of california recently passed legislation allowing some zoning requirements to be circumvented allowing people to build ADUs - accessory dwelling units - in their backyards, which constitute the vast majority of tiny houses in the bay area (again partly due to zoning... there are very few places in commuting distance of the jobs centers where you would be allowed to build just a tiny house, or a collection of tiny houses, on a plot of land).

Around here tiny houses are priced similarly to similar-sized studios, with some benefits and drawbacks of living in an ADU compared to a studio (detached, usually in quieter residentail areas, less amenities than an apartment building might have, often cheaper). Affordability is a huge part of why people live in ADUs over here

<comment><USER19> > In suburban areas of the midwest, the plot of land with a 3000 sqft house is > much cheaper than the actual house.

I think the same holds true for most of the US outside of major urban areas. When 1/2 acre costs $30,000 any house you build will cost more than the land.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Hear me out: It may be possible to stack houses on top of each other in layers.

<comment><USER21> I understand the joke, but let's take it seriously.

What are the main reasons people want houses and how can we preserve them when stacking?

* Noise. If you want to create the house experience you need to be able to jump and stomp the floor in the middle of the night without bothering anyone. Need thick and advanced floors, walls and front doors (easy to forget the last).

* Garden. Probably would need artifical light, but might be possible.

* BBQ in the garden. Maybe not impossible but might take some engineering to get the smoke out.

* Parking. Just need to ensure it exists plentifully.

* Multiple floors. Idk if people care too much for this, but easy to handle if so.

<comment><USER13> Then the deal killer: the desire for maximum possible control via ownership, without being subject to the whims of a landlord.

Even a condo fails at this. The ownership is fake. You don't have permission to bore a hole in the roof, foundation, or exterior wall. You can't paint the building with Vantablack. You have to pay a condo association fee which could change in unpredictable ways.

Regular houses get much closer to the ideal, especially if rural or at least without a homeowner association. Some states even let older people defer property taxes until the property is sold.

<comment><USER22> > You don't have permission to bore a hole in the roof

Is this really a relevant issue, when you just need a decent place to live?

<comment><USER23> The example is pretty ridiculous but yeah, ownership unencumbered by a landlord or HOA is immensely freeing.

Want to run a machine shop in the garage? Go ahead! Want to change your own oil in your car? Nobody is stopping you. Don't like the fact that anyone can simply walk in your front door on a whim and "inspect" things in your own home? Ownership provides all of those things and a lot more.

<comment><USER22> I don't know laws in the US, but we definitely own the apartments and people can't randomly walk in for 'inspections'.

<comment><USER24> In most US states all that is required is 24 Hours notice of entry for any maintenance, and emergency repairs/maintenance do not require any notice. Landlords and maintenance personal will always be assessing the state/condition of the apartment whenever they are there. Since they do not need a response to the notice, if you didn't see the e-mail, or missed the piece paper tucked in your door jam, it can feel a lot like a "random inspection."

<comment><USER22> I thought we are talking about property you own, is the Landlord the company that manages the building? This sounds like they have way too much leeway!

My family owns apartments in the Czech republic and nobody has rights to enter them, or physical means to do so. There is no 'landlord', the building and land is owned by the resident's association, where the "leader" is elected by resident's voting and paid a small salary. They manage repairs and bills.

If I suddenly found them in my house doing some random inspection and talking about 24h notice, police would be on the scene.

<comment><USER24> The parent comments were talking about landlords; in the US a landlord is the owner of a rented property. In the US "apartment" usually implies rented, while owned apartments are usually refered to as "condos/condominiums."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The author's experience is interesting to read about, but their dwelling is not typical of ADUs. 240 sq. ft is on the extreme low end of ADU sizes. Googling yields a variety of different figures, but one blog[1] cites an average ADU size of 640 ft. As someone who currently lives in a <700 sq. ft apartment with another person and a dog, I can say that 640 ft would be very livable for one person.

Tiny homes sound terrible, but tiny home != ADU. There are a lot of more reasonably sized ADUs being built, and most of them should be much more pleasant to live in than this one.

[https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2017/05/23/jumpstarting-the- marke...](https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2017/05/23/jumpstarting-the-market-for- accessory-dwelling-units/)

<comment><USER26> ADU size depends on lot size and zoning.

In Santa Cruz county, ADUs inside the "utility zone" are limited to 10% for normal lot sizes up to a max of 640 sqft. Large lots can have an ADU up to 800 sqft.

Outside of the "utility zone" ADUs can be as large as 1200 sqft if your lot is greater than 1 acre.

<comment><USER27> A few state laws on ADU have changed recently, the lot size limits are no longer legal and you can build 600sq ft adu on sub 5000 sq ft lots now

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Ultra tiny houses are a very poor tradeoff. Your costs per square foot drop significantly as you increase the buildings dimensions. The actual costs are mostly for land which sit unused around them. At that size a 10% larger investment in construction builds a significantly larger structure while still representing a small percentage of the monthly cost.

By comparison of construction vs land. 50k gets you a nice prebuilt 750sf single wide that can be delivered just about anywhere. Which could be covered by ~300$ mortgage meanwhile that much smaller space is renting for 1,600+$/month. So, at best your reducing that 300$ a little while leaving the 1,300+$ land cost alone.

<comment> d-sc I lived in one of those 50k prebuilt, they aren't as nice as they are made out to be. But the premise of your comment still stands.

<comment><USER29> Would you mind elaborating a bit? Would love to hear more about your experience with this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> 240 sq ft sounds too small. I think the tiny house movement overshot.

I've been living alone (with dog) in a 540 sq ft garage conversion for 7 years and it's just about the perfect size for me. It has a small bedroom (queen bed), larger office, even larger LR, smallish kitchen and a bathroom (no tub). If I bothered to change antying, the kitchen could be slightly larger, the bathroom could use a tub, the laundry could be moved indoors (it's out on the covered deck) and the water heater could be moved indoors too. It's not well designed and space is not utilized well (bare walls could be shelves). But with a better design I think it would be completely satisfactory. I like having less to clean and less to heat, but I wouldn't attempt anything smaller.

I should add that my house has nothing to do with affordable dense city housing, it's on a farm in New Zealand, which has other buildings (garage, storage container, shearing shed).

</comment><comment><USER31> In Toronto 500k buys you 500 sq/ft. There are condos being built that are as small as 385 sq/ft. Developers are just packing in units and making them smaller and smaller and charging a huge premium if you want a larger unit. The buildings are built like shit and the maintenance fees are outrageous. I can't imagine how much worse it's going to get as time goes on and people become more desperate trying to find somewhere to live or something to buy.

<comment><USER32> I'm in NY (ah, but not NYC) and inside city limits, within a metro area of 1.1 million people, and I have about 1300 sq ft that cost $165K. And no HOA/condo fees.

I'm not really putting in any effort to evangelize and promote the idea, but the concept of a land value tax instead of regular property taxes seemed like a plausible solution to the problems people have with real estate markets. You tax something, you get less of it. We want people to develop and invest in building on land, but we don't want them to profit from the scarcity of the actual acreage. So why not tax the value of the land away, and leave the buildings on it alone?

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Unless there is some provision for tiny lots, I really don't get the desire. Even then, many of these tiny houses, particularly anything that can be hauled behind a truck, is astonishingly bad. A 400 - 700 sq. ft modular house would be a better idea.

On a side note, there are quite a lot of stories from places like Hong Kong on how to maximize space in their small apartments that could be applied to tiny homes to make them more livable. I've watched a lot of those shows on HGTV and have not seen any of those designs applied. A youtube channel called _Living Big In A Tiny House_ [https://www.youtube.com/user/livingbigtinyhouse](https://www.youtube.com/user/livingbigtinyhouse) has some interesting designs with some space saving techniques.

<comment><USER34> It's worth pointing out that minimum lot sizes were used to push poor people, particularly POC, out of wealthier neighborhoods by making it uneconomical to build smaller homes on oversized lots.

SF has a minimum of 2,500-4000sf [1], and San Jose has a minimum of 5,400sf! It's the same for much of the bay area, the SFH I live in occupies ~20% of the lot it sits on, which is pure insanity for one of the most expensive metros in the US. It is even more insane when you look at the giant lots of SFHs _right next to Bart stations_.

[1] [https://www.livablecity.org/rethinking- rh/](https://www.livablecity.org/rethinking-rh/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> This title is kind of misleading, they're the tenant of a tiny rental, they don't own the place.

The necessity of being free to modify and tailor a living space to the occupant increases exponentially with the inverse of ft^2.

I live in a tiny space. It would drive me absolutely insane if there were a fold-out bed and other integrated amenities I wouldn't appreciate yet would be wasting precious space on. But since I own my place, whatever isn't working gets removed/changed and it's instead an iterative optimization process.

There are some serious advantages to having a small space. Heating/cooling systems are smaller, so cheaper to acquire, replace, and operate. Cleaning the place takes a few minutes. The lack of excess space significantly deters consumerism and hoarding. Maintenance and upgrades have much smaller multipliers, the number of windows, ft^2 of roofing material, exterior finishing, flooring, etc. It's all significantly lower cost in materials, less labor costs or less work/time if DIYing.

My property includes acres of buildable land, but I don't really feel all that compelled to increase the cost of ownership by building a larger home.

The main thing I'm contemplating right now is building a second minimalist tiny home on the property for visiting friends/airbnb, and maybe for me to live in when I'm doing invasive upgrades in the other one. I value that that's not a particularly costly proposition, to entirely gut and upgrade _everything_ in my tiny home. It wouldn't even take that long. Go price some nice windows on menards.com, lowes.com, or homedepot.com and see how much it would cost when you have 10-20 to replace vs. 2-4. This is the kind of stuff typical single-family residential home owners take out home equity lines of credit to do. I'd do it for under ten grand, no loans necessary, nor did it require a mortgage to buy this place to start with.

</comment><comment><USER36> > I can't afford to move

For one months rent, you could move your stuff, and pay your first months rent in my apartment complex in Overland Park, KS.

<comment><USER37> Yes, but in the minds of so many people in California and New York, Kansas doesn't exist.

Having moved to SF from "flyover country," it's astonishing to me how many people here are totally unaware of the rest of the country, and have never even visited anything outside of the Pacific Coast other than NYC or maybe DC. If you ask why they don't move someplace in the Midwest, the answer is they consider it to be a nearly mythological place that they only vaguely know exists and are, frankly, terrified of. It's bizarre how common that is.

<comment><USER38> New York and San Francisco are two of the most provincial cities in the US. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_of_the_World_from_9th_Ave...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_of_the_World_from_9th_Avenue)

<comment><USER39> Provincial != unfamiliar with your preferred area.

NYC and SF are about the easiest places for foreigners to integrate. Residents of those cities might not have been to Kansas, but lots of them have been to or come from Latin American or Asian countries--so definitely not provincial, but in fact multicultural.

<comment><USER38> 2a: limited in outlook : NARROW - [https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/provincial](https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/provincial)

"Provincial" in the sense of being preoccupied with themselves and not knowing much and caring less about the rest of the country.

Admittedly, both metros are more outward looking towards other countries. The elite New York Times readers consider themselves members of a community of international cities like London, Paris, Singapore, Tokyo, etc. That's not true of the average reader of the Daily News or New York Post.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I don't get the tiny house thing. They seem to have become a fad because house prices in a lot of places are currently out of reach of a lot of people. But isn't the part of the equation that's grown astronomically the cost of the land, not the cost of building the house?

I know that I couldn't afford a house where I am now (without a large down payment and mortgage repayments that were an unresponsible portion of my income) even if I just bought an empty plot of land.

<comment><USER11> The other part of the fad is the gorgeous photography of tiny houses and articles extolling the concept that was shared widely on social media. It romanticized the idea, and generally avoided the downsides.

<comment><USER41> The first wave of tiny houses seemed to be mostly self-built and people had poured a lot of love & hours into construction. Then they were all over Instagram/Pinterest. This has paved the way for a second wave, where some occupiers aren't quite as enraptured: mass production (or at least not self- built), living this way by more by necessity than choice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I think this is completely a function if multiple things including how much money you can spend on housing, how much stuff you own, your lifestyle (do you entertain, do you have equipment like a bike or kayak, etc), how clean/organized you are, how large you are, are you single, do you have pets, and how well the space is designed.

Tiny houses aren't for everybody, but they definitely meet the needs of a group of people. For instance myself, I live alone, have no pets, don't entertain parties, am really organized, and don't own a lot of stuff so a tiny home is completely within my comfort. Not to mention that if I lived in a normal sized apartment then it would look like I'm either in the process of moving in or moving out due to how little stuff I own. Even if the price per square foot increases, I simply don't need the extra space so why pay for it. It's like saying I should get a large pack of eggs for a better deal, even though I only need a small pack because the rest will go bad before I eat them. It just don't make sense in my situation, as well it's the case for many others.

Given that, I could not live in many tiny homes advertised on TV/instagram/YouTube, they're simply inefficient in terms of lifestyle. They've turned it into a competition for who can live in the smallest place possible which is plain stupid and you end up with a bunch of idiots designs that require you to somehow pack up your bed every day, or have no kitchen countertop, or no table. These aren't what I would consider normal tiny homes, they're on the extreme end of the spectrum.

You don't need to give up a normal lifestyle to have a "tiny home", only the people that want to "show off" do. These are the same type of people as those hipsters that carry around a typewriter to "show off" how hipster they are.

</comment><comment><USER43> I once lived in a tiny 150 sq ft 'bachelor' style apartment which was a single room as the entire living space with a small bathroom. It had no kitchen so I had to wash my dishes in the bathroom sink and use a portable electric hot plate for cooking meals. It was a very minimalist lifestyle since I had to think about every item I brought in because it'd take up space. The good thing is that I learned how to be efficient with resources and use less 'stuff', but it was not good for my mental health over the long run since the lack of freedom to move around was making me feel like I was trapped in a confined space. Almost felt like I was living in a prison cell. Sometimes it's not worth going with the cheapest option because it takes a toll on your mental health.

<comment><USER44> Curious for you and others who've done similar things -- had you considered sharing a place with roommates at the time?

I too have gone through such a phase after college, 12-14 years ago. I worked in the Sacramento area, I was single and had little belongings. The smallest/cheapest places I lived in were 1) living in the living room of my friend's 1-bedroom apartment, for $300/mo (he was paying $800/mo before I joined, so I shared 3/8 of it, and it wasn't like he was even using the living room at all before I moved in), and later 2) living in the living room of an apartment with random housemates (found on FB, at my college town Davis) for $250/mo. (Not counting the times when I had been somewhat homeless for a couple of months and stayed in a different friend's apartment every week with a sleeping bag, sleeping on their room's floor, when I was working a very low pay job)

Of course finding similarly priced apartments is impossible (even in 2006~07), I honestly doubt I would even be able to find a 150 sq ft apartment for that price. I would however gladly take living with roommates/housemates -- especially over a 150 sq ft apartment to myself -- considering the toll on mental health etc. like you said. I actually quite enjoyed my living conditions at the time (taking over the living room at my friend's place and random housemates' place). Even with random housemates, it's nice to have someone to say hi to when they walk in and out (inevitably walking past where I'd be sleeping or using my computer, when they walk to the front door).

<comment><USER43> I've lived with roommates before and I do agree with you that it's a lot better than living alone in a small space if the rent cost comes out to be the same. If you're an introvert it can get annoying though. There's trade-offs to everything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I have lived in a 200 sqft room in college (with another person!) and it would have been tight, but pretty decently livable for a single person. You have room for a bed, desk+chair, nightstand, TV + couch but not much else. I don't believe the photo in the article shows as much of the place as it could (it's also taken with a fisheye lense to distort the size).

Also, living in an apartment with roommates is probably cheaper than living in an ADU by yourself (depending on area); in my area it is about 20% cheaper. You can end up with a larger shared area with a normal sized kitchen and living room. Living in an ADU is really paying a premium for privacy and other benefits of living by yourself.

</comment><comment><USER45> The main problem here seems to be that the author was working from home. A tiny house is really only good for washing, sleeping and lounging.

</comment><comment><USER46> ISTM that "tiny homes" are just mobile homes rebranded for hipsters without the stigma of living in a trailer park.

</comment><comment><USER47> I lived in an off-grid cabin from June through September. It's 240 square feet and has a loft. I had 4G and a 2Ahr USB battery bank I would charge at work, but no electricity and not even a composting toilet, just the woods. But all I saved from living there I probably spent eating out since there was no kitchen either. I probably couldn't do it year-round, but I will remember my time there fondly. I wish the author here talked more about their actual experiences and challenges and not making it a story about rent prices or the housing market.

</comment><comment><USER48> Move Chattanooga, TN

* Lots of progressive tech with SF ties

* Municipal Fiber Internet - gigabit speeds!

* startups!

* rock climbing!

[https://www.inc.com/peter-cohan/how-chattanooga- created-18b-...](https://www.inc.com/peter-cohan/how-chattanooga- created-18b-in-startup-exits-in-under-5-years.html)

Move to Knoxville, TN

* Fastest super computer in the world

* Oak Ridge National Lab

[https://www.wired.com/story/worlds-fastest-supercomputer- bre...](https://www.wired.com/story/worlds-fastest-supercomputer-breaks-ai- record/)

</comment><comment><USER49> Tiny houses in and of themselves are fine if that's what you're into.

The problem is that they seem to be used as a way to avoid discussing the fact that land, not buildings, are what is causing all the housing affordability issues.

We desperately need to ramp up taxes on land in order to reduce inequality and speculation, and encourage density.

Nobody made land, so nobody deserves the right to use it to exploit other people.

Unfortunately, hundreds of years of political supremacy by landed gentry is largely still in place and hard to dismantle.

<comment><USER50> > We desperately need to ramp up taxes on land in order to reduce inequality > and speculation

Speculation is what pays for housing.

<comment><USER49> Too often, yes. That's what I'm complaining about.

Plenty of other ways to fund it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> This has nothing to do with construction costs, just housing policy and supply/demand.

Here's an idea - get a roommate. For twice what you would pay for this "tiny house" ($1600), you can get a spacious 1500+ sq ft 2 bedroom apartment, even a house with a yard if you are okay with living slightly farther away from downtown.

</comment><comment><USER52> I was renting a 600 sq.ft apt in SF for $3000 more than half a decade ago. The apartment management company raised rents with no rhyme or reason. I decided to move away from SF in hopes of lower rent and started to search mainly along the 101/280 or BART lines and found a lot of places that were vacant for more than a month but rents were exorbitantly high. It seemed like just one or two real-estate companies owned all those apartment complexes and were increasing the rents artificially each year.

I finally realized moving further away doesn't help from overall costs. In SF I wasn't owning a car. When I moved away from SF, car became a necessity. If you add the cost of car ownership, it made up for the difference in the rent. And of course not to mention the drop in quality of life due to 1h+ drive on busy 101/280 each day.

</comment><comment><USER53> As a European guy living in Japan, this article illustrates an interesting perspective to me.

Millions of people live in smaller places and are perfectly happy about it. It does look like her house is wasn't built to properly optimize for the space though (the toilet unit could be much better, having a sink, toilets, and a shower in the same tiny space with a very clean looking bathroom is a solved problem).

The rent price seems fairly high, but it seems to be aligned with local salaries and the (perceived?) quality of life the bay area has to offer.

As the rent price per square foot gets higher with smaller spaces, those tiny houses are probably more profitable than larger apartments or houses, so we might see more of those as landlords realize, and then maybe renters will get used to it like in Tokyo and Hong Kong?

</comment><comment><USER54> In short this is the nearest analogy to a prison cell. Add to this that people only move around in fixed routes- Office to home to grocery shopping etc. This is more less like self created open air prison.

I'm not surprised that the psychological effects of this are any different than staying in prison.

I've been in this living-in-small-home position, and half the depression was just happening looking at the birds flying away from trees to wherever they want from small room I was living in.

Get out, the world is big.

</comment><comment><USER55> I'm surprised no one has made a building with units compatible to the size of Japanese apartments in Osaka. Tiny rooms, sure, but with their own one-unit bathroom/shower and a sink and stove.

Don't need much more than that. I lived in one for about 450 usd... I paid extra for the small balcony.

But I guess most people in san fransisco would not want to live in such "cramped" spaces. Either that, or more likely there isn't anyone willing to build such a place.

</comment><comment><USER56> Average habitable surface per person in Paris is ~330 square feet. The average tiny house is 500 square feet (quote from the article). It may be tiny for US standards but is livable.

[https://www.cnews.fr/france/2015-04-28/paris-un-habitant- vit...](https://www.cnews.fr/france/2015-04-28/paris-un-habitant-vit-en- moyenne-dans-31-m2-703598)

</comment><comment><USER57> The distinct advantage of a tiny house is that it forces you to live a tiny life. It changes how you think, plan, buy, and behave.

I think of it like a stomach stapling:

For some people, it makes all the difference to their quality of life.

For others, it's a solution to the wrong problem, and therefore not a solution at all. Maybe even something that compounds their existing problems.

</comment><comment><USER58> Build higher. It is the only way. Centralize all the expensive stuff to maintain, and build higher.

</comment><comment><USER59> 240 square feet is just too small. America is a rich country with plenty of land, but without rational housing policies you wind up with insanity like this. Great parking, though.

</comment><comment><USER60> There's tons of videos on youtube of people excitedly moving into their tiny house or converted bus or whatever. They usually seem to be 200-500 sq ft affairs on 5-10 acres of land, so they aren't exactly solving the housing problem. There's a few in tiny apartments in cities to be fair.

Anecdotally, most of these folks seem to move out of their tiny place in about a year or two because they're simply tired of not being able to do crazy things like stand up or stretch their arms out.

I remember one series of increasingly distressing videos where a guy was financially tied up in some tiny property, got married, then started having kids. By the time they were finally able to unload the property on somebody else they had an infant sleeping in a closet and the husband was sleeping in a tent so their older daughter could sleep inside with their mother.

I'm really not sure what problem the "Tiny House Movement" is trying to solve even if some of the solutions are kind of interesting. The variety of small living accommodations in Asian Cities seems far more interesting to me to be honest, because they're solving real problems of affordability, shelter and so on.

Some of the tiniest places seem to be relatively shame-free dorm-like affairs in South Korea and Japan intended for people studying for various exams, but also used by a fair number of semi-permanent residents who lack the means to stay elsewhere. These places are _cheap_ , maybe around $300-400 per month, but have tradeoffs like shared washrooms and kitchens.

1 - [https://youtu.be/kBPyN3LE65g](https://youtu.be/kBPyN3LE65g)

2 - [https://youtu.be/0YWRPWDqzVg](https://youtu.be/0YWRPWDqzVg)

3 - [https://youtu.be/979a8b0lP2M](https://youtu.be/979a8b0lP2M)

4 - [https://youtu.be/q0zZfpe2v1g](https://youtu.be/q0zZfpe2v1g)

There's also the flip-side, various levels of poverty (like #1 above) result in sometimes intense living conditions:

5 - [https://youtu.be/hLrFyjGZ9NU](https://youtu.be/hLrFyjGZ9NU)

6 - [https://youtu.be/wN4pgYzuRb4](https://youtu.be/wN4pgYzuRb4)

7 - - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhIQjyBrmwI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhIQjyBrmwI)

</comment><comment><USER61> > My bathroom, a 3-by-6-foot "wet room" with a walk-in shower, is so small > that it doesn't have a sink, and I have to use the nearby kitchen sink

First world problems.

</comment><comment><USER62>
      Frey argues that in some cases even small ADUs can make
      sense; a quarter of Americans live alone, and don't
      necessarily need much room, especially as many cities work
      to improve public space and there are an increasing number
      of places to spend time away from home.

Somebody isn't an introvert.</comment>


Maybe we shouldn't use Zoom after all - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/31/zoom-at-your-own-risk/ <comment><USER2> I have avoided weighing in on all the talk about Zoom recently. Mostly because I'm an outsider, my company does not use Zoom.

However I've used Zoom once or twice, for interviews or in one case working with a friend on a pair programming session.

At my company we use teams, slack, skype and discord (yes, really).

Heres the thing though; The first time I used Zoom I was actually petrified (as I usually am) that I have to install /another/ application and figure out compatibility issues, especially because I'm one of those crusty die hard linux users. I panicked so bad that I resorted to using my phone.

(Tip: don't attend interviews with your phone recording from your hand, it looks super unprofessional I'm told)

The second time I had a zoom meeting I just clicked the URL in the meeting request and it worked!

You have to understand, I'm coming from a place where things almost never work. Exchange? nah, maybe 2007, or was it 2003, who knows. Teams? Their linux port not only consumes all available CPU on my laptop (which is not a slouchy laptop) but it doesn't even function correctly with basic stuff. Slack works a treat (as long as I don't do screen sharing) and I suspect that this is largely why it caught on too.

My point is simple here: Proper convenience is hard to get right. On-boarding is a enormous part of why Slack is trouncing other instant messaging efforts (IRC especially).

The security is lackluster but very honestly (and with a heavy heart) I have to say that the majority of people don't care until it affects them.

We don't know how Zoom will respond, but for what it's worth, I like that their product works well on my platform, they deserve massive props for that.

<comment><USER3> I have to say that I'm a sinner, I read these articles and think, well, I don't actually care that much, but its good other people do and hopefully zoom improves what they are doing, but it's doing a good job and it's easy for everyone who needs to use it. Heck, my mums using it for virtual meetups wither her friends (all hovering in the 70s age group)

<comment><USER4> Yea, don't be hard on yourself here. This pandemic has taught me a VERY valuable lesson: you can't control or care about everything. You just can't. For your own sanity there are many times when you have to throw your hands up and say "sorry but I just don't have the time or energy to add this to my long list of wtf's". Like you said there are others out there that are dedicating most or all of their time to issues that you can't. Life is a giant distributed system. If you try to take on every issue that comes your way then you're going to burn out, blow up, expire, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Zoom works so well, given a lot of us can't work or learn face to face at the moment, I think we just have to work with Zoom constructively. There are equivalent or better solutions in niches but no general solution that really stacks up. Report security issues. Keep them honest. And don't use it for discussions that are potentially highly sensitive - buyer beware.

I would much rather use an open technology with FOSS software with end to end encryption and all the nice things but I know from experience that no such app is going to be on every platform with all the features and be useable by non- technical people.

There is a lot of negative media being generated at the moment and while I can see the problems and I am sure the people reporting them are all genuine in their motivations I don't trust the media not to be pushing an agenda when one company is doing so well out of this and their competitors are struggling. Skype had Zoom's space, and many of the same security and other problems and they were bought and mismanaged into irrelevance. Whatever Zoom is doing, they are still doing it better than most of their competition.

I think we need to give Zoom a bit of space to make things right. They are suddenly under a huge spotlight. People are so divisive and ready to attack. Save your energy for battling bigger problems like staying alive and keeping an income.

<comment><USER6> > I think we need to give Zoom a bit of space to make things right. They are > suddenly under a huge spotlight. People are so divisive and ready to attack. > Save your energy for battling bigger problems like staying alive and keeping > an income.

They've been under a negative spotlight for a year now because of their poor security - they've had that chance already.

</comment></comment><comment> y-c-o-m-b Reliability goes a long way and Zoom is very reliable, especially considering the recent spike of users.

I value privacy, but I think the jury is still out on this company. They need time to react to the public scolding they're enduring as of late. Hopefully things change for the better and they take security more seriously after this.

EDIT: A word

<comment><USER7> Had a meeting tonight with over 50 participants. Screen sharing. Not a single hitch or problem.

In the past tried multiple times with Hangouts (dies after you get more than 4 on board), jitsi meet (not good with bad connections), Slack (good luck with video), Hipchat (video doesn't work for more than 3 participants) and Skype (connection drops). On one of my previous gigs, we ditched everything and took Mumble + google docs for showcase.

Before Zoom, Skype was good enough, until they messed it up. My presumption is that all of these tools are developed in perfect environment: ideal network, minimal latency, close peers, single OS. As soon as you start to drift from those presumptions, complete breakdown happens.

<comment><USER8> In the real world you cannot have everything. Fast, cheap, reliable, scalable, secure, easy to use, os agnostic. Pick several or be disappointed about the theoretical perfect company that should exist and provide all.

<comment><USER9> Zoom is pretty much it, isn't it? (unless you require cheap == free) It did have some security issues, but they patched them eventually.

It is not resistant to government/owner monitoring (and this is a separate thing from "secure"), but even if they did add true E2E, they'd still be a proprietary software often running on proprietary OS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I used zoom today and the experience from a tech viewpoint is horrifying...

It messed up my PulseAudio settings so bad I could not get my bluetooth headphone working until I started the app again. It really sent shivers down my spine. What the hell is this app doing to my arch installation?

Then it started going in and out of fullscreen. It launched itself back and forth from my workspace. The goddamn app was all over the place.

Not to mention the processing spikes. My CPU which under heavy compiling never goes above 80, was around 90 degrees. At one point I was actually considering opening wireshark to see if it was receiving jobs and cryptomining on my computer.

I am not paranoid, but I am neved using this piece of garbage again in my main installation. It has to be treated like a piece of malicious software that is doing god knows what to your installation. It must be run in a virtual machine, with a NAT separation from the rest of your network, with control over CPU resources and with total isolation from the rest of your config.

It really did NOT behave well.

EDIT: I guess the worst part is that I am kinda expected to use this thing. People in management just decided they were going to use zoom without consulting the tech department. And I can see the appeal. It works for one. It empowers the speaker, detects really well turn taking, and just gives a good general sense of control. But from a tech standpoint is really terrifying. Click detection? Device control hijacking (pulseaudio)? Not respecting aspect and desktop placement? Those are outrageous and I can't see people outside IT understanding these concerns.

<comment><USER11> Runs flawlessly on win10 and OSX.

<comment><USER10> To be fair, everyone using Ubuntu saw no problems. But Ubuntu is known to have somewhat deep system customisation. You can't expect someone using Ubuntu to respect the KISS principle. However, this no way justifies how bad it behaved under Arch. You don't see other major application doing the same kind of mess in someone's system.

EDIT: I usually frown upon such comments, but in this case I think I might do that. I have a windows installation for games, I will just use it to run Zoom. If we come to think of it, it IS already running Windows, so Zoom isn't the worse thing running there...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've seen about 10 different articles against Zoom during the past 3 days. I really don't enjoy using Zoom, but the volume and frequency of criticism is odd. Has anyone figured out where it's coming from?

<comment><USER13> The macOS version of Zoom installs or installed an unannounced web server on macOS that runs even when Zoom isn't running, and could perform remotely controlled actions on the macOS host.

<comment><USER14> This, in a nutshell.

I'm a simple man. When my OS vendor has to push an update to remove a misbehaving program from my computer, I consider it malware, and will never install it again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Zoom has about 130,000 subdomains. Cisco, established 20 years earlier and operating in the same space and many more, has 45,000.

About 40-50k of Zoom's subdomains are customers. Company.Zoom.Us.

About 5k of the subdomains reference MMR. Likely this means "Meet Me Rooms" which are seen in data centers.

About 200 contain the word tracking, 300 the word face, and 400 the word elasticsearch. Something like 700 contain the word vip. Maybe 1000 gitlab. They really like gitlab! These are not customers again and the whole structure is impressive and strictly followed.

IPA is the most used term after zoom of course. I think it is a reference to "international phonetic alphabet" for the China based engineers. Anita is used around 4K times. Likely this references the CFO since 2018.

Most interestingly, every US state and every Chinese province has about 10-20 subdomains carved out for it.

So xj-restricted.acv.ipa.zoom.us refers to "Xinjiang".

And xz-influxdata.amp.ipa.zoom.us refers to "Tibet".

Finally as a last example "va-accounts.asset2.ipa.zoom.us" refers to Virginia one would assume. All the other states are there. Didn't check other countries though.

Have never worked at like an MPLS company but overall fascistic fastidiously well designed naming schema that they had the discipline to adhere to. These can get out of hand so fast at companies so again cool.

<comment><USER16> This is some great sleuthing! Thanks for sharing it. If you don't mind me asking, how did you list out all the 130k subdomains?

<comment><USER17> That's a great question. I'm no DNS expert, but I know that anonymous zone transfers are not normally a thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Maybe I'm weird, but I find video conferencing really jarring -- id rather just have the audio. The thing to me is that since the camera is offset from the screen, you never make eye contact with the person you're talking to, you both look like you're looking at something else when you're looking at each other. That, and seeing a reflection of every face I make on screen makes me really self conscious. "Do I always look that bored?" It's so easy to get stuck in your own head watching yourself talk. It just feels like its in a jarring uncanny valley. Id rather just use the phone.

<comment><USER19> I try to look directly at the camera when speaking rather than the image of the other person. Or if you position the laptop camera far enough away it matters less.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I don't think the average user cares so much about security and privacy as hacker news readers.

<comment><USER21> Even on HN, plenty of people have differing priorities, and it can vary depending on the context. For me, my work meetings and family meetings aren't sensitive, so encryption isn't a big deal. For my family in particular, the fact that even grandma can click a single link and be looking at her entire family in a matter of seconds is a huge win. We tried WebEx. We tried Teams. Then I suggested we try Zoom, and it was an instant hit. Would I like for Zoom to address the issues? You bet. Will I give up the audio quality and brady bunch-style screen for the whole family to gather around? Not a chance!

<comment><USER22> The big "problem," if one can call it that, is that Zoom seems to work seamlessly, simply, and reliably, while no one else does.

This is a scenario where one product really works, particularly for non- technical users, and the others don't appear to.

The big feature is "it works." Whoever is behind it appears to understand "death before inconvenience." [http://paulgraham.com/road.html](http://paulgraham.com/road.html). Much open source software never achieves widespread adoption because it is technically impressive but inconvenient or poorly designed to users.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> My company went 100% remote recently for obvious reasons. Quite a few people are trying to advocate for the company buying a company wide license. The de facto standard is currently Google Hangouts Meet (my company uses G Suite so it comes included).

A lot of people whine about Hangouts Meet, but honestly I find it completely adequate (but not much more). Zoom is marginally more user friendly, but I don't think it's meaningfully better. Certainly not enough to spend $15/user/month [0] while G Suite, in its entirety is $12/user/month [1].

[0]: [https://zoom.us/pricing](https://zoom.us/pricing)

[1]: [https://gsuite.google.com/pricing.html](https://gsuite.google.com/pricing.html)

</comment><comment><USER24> Someone should start offering big scale services based on Matrix.

</comment><comment><USER25> We use BlueJeans at work, and for my part time master's program. It doesn't have virtual backgrounds like Zoom, but it is very reliable and easy to use.

<comment><USER26> We ditched BlueJeans for zoom at work and it's so much better. With BlueJeans the video stutters more, audio quality is worse and the video doesn't work about 1/3 of the time until I reboot my machine. On top of that BlueJeans drains my battery like crazy. Zoom just works so much better for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> <rant>

The people behind Zoom have no obligations to you (not you, OP, the general 'you') at all.

They built the product with the Facebook SDK wired up to report your activity back to Zuckerberg. They told you about it in the T&Cs which you agreed to. They built the product, as they rightly point out, for a different, constrained market where Zoom gatecrashing wasn't considered - not the whole world in a pandemic crisis, where people will always try to exploit platforms for exposure and profit.

If you don't like Zoom or what they are doing, don't use it. They owe you nothing. Acting like Zoom have some kind of social responsibility to you because it's suddenly the most convenient tool when you're stuck at home is ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER28> > Then there's Zoombombing, where trolls take advantage of open or unprotected > meetings and poor default settings to take over screen-sharing and broadcast > porn or other explicit material. The FBI this week warned users to adjust > their settings to avoid trolls hijacking video calls.

I haven't really been following what is going on with Zoom. I have been vaguely aware of quite a few security issues.

However today I was linked youtube live stream from a friend on discord of some guy trolling random school classes while by pretending to be some sort of African Warlord. While his act was quite initially amusing and tbh harmless, it certainly didn't leave a positive impression of the software in my mind.

</comment><comment><USER29> I use it to do my day job. My company blesses its use so these security issues are a side show to get sorted out by Zoom. I need to pay my bills and put food on the table.

</comment><comment><USER30> The one video chat app alternative no ones talking about because the majority of HNers don't work in Microsoft shops: Teams, with 44 million DAU.

<comment><USER31> True. Most HNers would use Slack, and most would argue that MS Teams is a poor copy of Slack.

<comment><USER32> If you could pick your app would you choose {workplace, zoom, slack} or {yammer, teams, teams}

You gotta really love pain if you choose the latter one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'm not defending their recent transgressions, but Zoom works exceptionally, is intuitive, and I don't see these issues slowing them down much. I'd hope they make things right, or as right as they can, but the HN/Tech blog reaction seems disproportionate to the actual news. It's starting to feel weird.

</comment><comment><USER34> What worried me the most is the "zoom.us" in the name installer file. As if they went the extra length making sure you are comfortable it's a US company. In fact it is, so why even making a point of that?

</comment><comment><USER35> Lazyweb question here as I've only marginally followed this issue - are most of the reported security problems (obviously bar the lack of end-end encryption) obviated by using the web app?

</comment><comment><USER36> There seems to be a tons of critics on Zoom in the privacy and data privacy domain recently, wondering whether it will indeed have meaningful impact on the usage rate on the product itself.

</comment><comment><USER37> by this time i think these are covert reverse-psychology marketing pieces. I mean, despite the bad press, facebook kept increasing in usage.

</comment><comment><USER38> [https://archive.is/m4yrZ](https://archive.is/m4yrZ)

</comment><comment><USER39> [http://archive.md/m4yrZ](http://archive.md/m4yrZ)

</comment><comment><USER40> Surprise UK gov use zoom. Video conferencing is not new. I know double O is faked but gchq as well.

</comment><comment><USER41> I can't wait for signal to support group video chat...

<comment><USER42> And desktop video....

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Computer illiterates learn a lesson. News at 11.

</comment><comment><USER44> Whoever is orchestrating this hitjob against zoom, is doing a bad job of it.

Most people are going to ignore articles like this. After a certain amount of stories, outrage fatigue sets in and people start to see it as a hit piece and dismiss it, no matter how bad it really is.

<comment><USER45> No one forced Zoom to do any of the shady things they're doing. The idea of it being a "hitjob" feels silly given all of the article's claims have evidence.

It's simply what you get for going in the spotlight.

That being said, I do feel the tech industry gets more than it's fair share of criticism. Maybe it's just we've become complacent with the ways that other industries abuse their customers.

<comment><USER46> _No one forced Zoom to do any of the shady things they 're doing._

I wonder how much Facebook is paying Zoom to snoop on Zoom's customers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Zoom should be considered malware, as it was written with malicious intent, or with sufficiently advanced incompetence as to be indistinguishable from malice.

<comment><USER48> Advanced malice often pretends to be incompetence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Are 4 letter brand names making our kids stupid? Before Zoom, products had longer names like WebEx, Hangouts and GoToMeeting. Longer names challenge our children to learn how to spell longer, more complex words, even if they are completely made up. "I fear for the children, and therefore recommend that parents and teachers keep their children from using Zoom." - Doctor quote from some chiropractor

/s Sorry, I had to call it. I expect the headline next week.</comment>


Why I never finish my Haskell programs (part 2) - <AUTHOR> https://blog.plover.com/prog/haskell/what-goes-wrong-2.html <comment><USER2> This is indeed bikeshedding (as the author himself rightfully hints at with irony).

And I wouldn't say it's anything specific to Haskell: I've seen a lot of times in other languages people trying to flesh entire libraries around a domain- specific primitive that go far beyond their current needs.

I'd say the Haskell community (its focus) is more "at fault" here, encouraging these kinds of exploratory rabbit-hole-diving. Though, to be fair, there are people there with get-shit-done mentality (github/bos and github/ocharles come to mind) and I see more of that kind coming in lately.

Pick the weakest structure that will satisfy your current needs and move on. (by ocharles, paraphrased)

<comment><USER3> The previous article was about bikeshedding. This one is just about getting distracted.

<comment><USER4> Isn't bikeshedding defined to be "arguing about trivial details." The first article wasn't about arguing. Also since semantics are trivial, this is meta.

<comment><USER5> The articles are about two subtly different problems. The first is finding something difficult in your code and then getting distracted learning about it in depth. The second is about getting lost in the process applying deep theory to a simple concept. The first is "I know too little, I must know more", while the second is "I know all this cool theory, I must use it."

I think both could probably be called bikeshedding, but it's interesting to make a distinction between the two.

<comment><USER4> I think the jargon you're looking for is "yak shaving" not bikeshedding (which is about arguing about minor changes).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This seems to be a form of self-inflicted "nerd sniping", as defined by XKCD: [https://www.xkcd.com/356/](https://www.xkcd.com/356/)

It's fair to question the tool in this case. As programmers we rely on our tools to provide abstractions that free our minds from thinking about details that don't matter. If the tool (or perhaps the culture around using the tool) insists that we deal with details we're not interested in or don't care about, perhaps the tool is not the best one for the task at hand.

<comment><USER7> It's a fun tool though! There needs to be a place for fun coding in this world, and I'll bet that some fun has been had digging those rabbit holes.

<comment><USER8> It's meta-fun because you're getting fun with the mean rather than the end.

To me, it's fun to achieve a goal — programming to solve a real problem, implementing something that I can use or others can. It's super fun when my program works, has no bugs, it's cute and nice.

To others, the act itself of programming is funnier than actually doing something useful, so that you can deep dive into the best way of programming without actually doing something useful if not a program complex enough to use whatever programming feature you want to have meta-fun with.</comment></comment></comment>


Hacker News Tokyo Japan Meetup #17 – 7th of November, 2012 - <AUTHOR> http://www.makeleaps.jp/blog/en/2012/10/%E3%83%8F%E3%83%83%E3%82%AB%E3%83%BC%E3%83%8B%E3%83%A5%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B9tokyo-meetup-17%E5%9B%9E%E9%96%8B%E5%82%AC2012%E5%B9%B411%E6%9C%887%E6%97%A5/

<comment><USER2> Don't forget to check out HN Kansai as well for other HN events in Japan: <http://hnkansai.org/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for mentioning it - HN Kansai co-organizer here. We had our last event last friday and you can find our presentations online here (one on the Raspberry Pi, one on an upcoming app "ContextPower", and one from Sacha Greif on "Side Projects"): [http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPbAAnPEAdq6bgpvuarNAg...](http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPbAAnPEAdq6bgpvuarNAgUzrjHrEDlzK)

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> This time we're at a new venue - the event space at Super Deluxe in Roppongi.

It is actually a huge space, so it should be very conducive to meeting people and having a chat.

Here's a couple of images: [http://www.shift.jp.org/guide/wp- content/uploads/2008/09/sup...](http://www.shift.jp.org/guide/wp- content/uploads/2008/09/superdeluxe.jpg) <http://kualauk.coron.jp/blog/img/2286.jpg>

Hope to see you there!

<comment><USER3> Yes, I think Super Deluxe is a good place for an event like this. Last year I went to the Mobile Monday App Exhibition [1] there and it was a nice open space that allowed people to move around and mingle.

[1] [http://momoto.doorkeeper.jp/events/257-momo-tokyo- sept-12-ap...](http://momoto.doorkeeper.jp/events/257-momo-tokyo-sept-12-app- exhibition)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would be interested in organizing a meetup in Phnom Penh. For no other reason than to see how many people here read HN? Is there someone I need to talk to before organizing the event?

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm interested but can't commit until next week. I assume you will allow walk- ins if you're not full?

<comment><USER2> Yes, but it'd be great if you could register on Doorkeeper as soon as it's confirmed you're coming to help us keep track.</comment></comment>


Questions People Ask When I Tell Them I Own an Airplane - <AUTHOR> http://www.fivezeromike.com/blog/2014/2/18/top-questions <comment><USER3> It's important to say that the general aviation population has gotten much smaller over the last few decades. It was a lot more popular 25 years ago when I flew much more than I do now. A number of aircraft manufacturers have stopped building small general-aviation planes for a number of reasons including liability and a reduction in public interest.

I started flying about 1980. By 1992, 12 years later, about half the pilots I knew in 1980 (instructors as well as students) had been killed in flying accidents. That's another reason for the decline in activity.

<comment><USER4> > about half the pilots I knew in 1980 (instructors as well as students) had > been killed in flying accidents

Wow, that's certainly dissuasive.

By the way, are there some kind of autopilots on modern amateur planes? Or is that even possible to integrate any ?

<comment><USER5> From the makers of X-Plane: [http://www.x-plane.com/x-world/hardware/seeker- avionics/](http://www.x-plane.com/x-world/hardware/seeker-avionics/)

(I don't fly and know nothing about this but it sounds pretty cool)

<comment><USER6> That's amazing, think of all the lives it will save!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't like all this talk of risk and death. While it's true that more accidents happen with small GA aircraft, it isn't really the dangerous activity non-fliers make it out to be. When accidents do occur, it's almost always due to some very poor decisions made on the part of the pilot - <USER2> off over wight, bad weather/icing, shoddy maintenance, etc.

I started out with GA flying and later became a flight instructor, then moved on to flying small turboprops (into some very treacherous airports), and now fly jets with an airline. I've never known anyone personally who has been killed or injured in an aircraft accident. Even flying for an airline, I'm baffled by the sense of danger some passengers feel by going up in a large jet.

Here's a startup that's trying to reverse the decline of GA flying - OpenAirplane.com. They launched last year and have caught on pretty quickly. It's a universal rental checkout for GA pilots, such as the OP. Get checked out in, say, a Cessna 172 in Detroit, and you're set to rent a similar Cessna 172 in Florida. The requirement for a checkout at each operator from which one wants to rent can be a roadblock for would-be renters, and this solves the problem. The company has the backing of most major aviation insurance providers and even Cessna Aircraft Company.

<comment><USER8> Very cool! Do you know if OpenAirplane.com also works with helicopter pilots?

<comment><USER9> Not yet... But we're working on it. We already have 2 Operators lined up to start offering rotorcraft rental via OpenAirplane. Stay tuned.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> For those wondering how much it costs to get your private pilot's license...

You'll need to study and pass a written examine so you'll have to either purchase self-study books or take a ground school class. (This is relatively cheap, a few hundred dollars.)

You need to log 40 hours of flight training time. Depending on locale, anticipate paying $100-$150 per hour for a flight instructor and $100-$150 per hour for plane rental and fuel. So that's $200-$300 an hour times 40 hours so a ballpark estimation is $8000 to $12000 MINIMUM. Depending how quickly you get to flying solo (with your instructor on the ground) and how well you do will determine if your flight instructor will sign off after the minimum 40 hours.

EDIT: You'll need to pay for the examine and I forgot, you'll need to get an "FAA physical" and an okay from a physician which you'll also have to pay for (unless you can get your health insurance to pay for it as a yearly physical examine).

<comment><USER11> The FAA also created a new license class called 'Sport Pilot' about 10 years ago that only takes 20 hours of flight training, which makes it much easier and cheaper to get into flying [1]. However, this comes with limitations like only able to take one passenger, only able to fly during the day, in good weather, only in a small aircraft, etc.

[1] [http://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Regulatory-,-a-,-Certification-...](http://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Regulatory-,-a-,-Certification- Policy/Frequently-Asked-Questions-About-Sport-Pilot.aspx)

<comment><USER12> When I decided I was going to get my pilot license I planned to do so efficiently, without burning cash unnecessarily (yeah, right) -- I was prepared with my own plan for every flight... I'd heard numbers in the $8k to $10k ballpark and thought "I'll target that".

It still cost me $15k (in 2012 -- airplane $11k, instructor $4k) to get my Private Pilot License -- plus another $2k in optional expenses like a good home simulator set-up, iPad software, books etc. -- some of which arguably should have made my training more efficient.

While I don't know the costs of getting a Sport Pilot license, I have wondered if it would have been the better route for me.

The difference between the times I fly with a VFR Private Pilot license is virtually no different than I would with a Sport Pilot license. I rarely have more than one passenger (one is limit for Sport Pilot license), and I rarely fly at night ('engine out' at night is beyond the risk I'm willing to take), I've never been above 10k feet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Here's a question:

Tell me about single engine (what you appear to have) vs. multi engine (twin, I guess) ?

Should I be thinking about redundancy in plane engines the same way I think about redundancy in ... say ... kidneys ?

It seems to me that I would really, really want a twin engined plane...

edit: I found this [1] but I'm not sure I buy it. I am all about simplicity in systems, but redundancy in a critical component is a different thing. Further, Perrow speaks of fortuitous surpluses (or whatever) as an unalloyed good in [2]. This seems like just the kind of surplus I'd want...

[1] [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AirplaneRule](http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AirplaneRule)

[2] Normal Accidents (run, don't walk, to buy and read it)

<comment><USER14> Think about it this way: have you ever had your car engine die on the road? For the vast majority of people, this just doesn't happen, even though people spend much, much more time driving than they would flying. Modern engines are remarkably reliable. And if it does quit, you can glide the plane to a forced landing.

Long flights over water, mountains, or in poor visibility is a different matter.

<comment><USER15> > have you ever had your car engine die on the road?

Yes, several times in the ten years I've been driving automobiles. Is that not common?

<comment><USER14> As far as I can recall, it hasn't _ever_ happened to me in the 24 years I've been driving. Are you doing the required maintenance?

<comment><USER15> I suspect it is strongly correlated to how much you spend on cars (particularly, how old your cars are). I've had a car that liked to overheat, which took a couple of trips to the mechanic before they sorted it out. I also had a truck that had some sort of electrical problem (I don't remember what exactly, and I know nothing about automobiles).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> You forgot the LAQ: "Can someone who only 'trained' on a Flight Simulator be able to take-off and land in a real plane?'

<comment><USER17> The answer is yes. Someone actually did this experiment.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJT_CACIZqs](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJT_CACIZqs)

But it's pretty challenging. Today's simulators are pretty good, but there's something about having your life actually on the line that can't be captured by a sim.

<comment> dav- Perhaps you could integrate some type of death instrument into the simulator to increase the realism. Crash your plane, and a stack of exercise machine weights falls onto your head. Something like that.

<comment><USER18> Don't want to be beta testing that simulator.

<comment><USER19> I volunteer my ex-boss as victim..test candidate 1.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I would love an app that matches passengers to GA flights going between airfields, essentially a ride-sharing option for small aircraft. Pilots could offload a bit of the fuel cost and passengers could go between short range destinations very fast if they're lucky.

<comment><USER21> A private pilot license (PPL) does not allow for commercial flying (charging passengers). To charge passengers to pilot requires a commercial pilot license.

<comment><USER22> A PPL does allow for "cost sharing" for flights under Part 91.

It's a very grey area around ride-sharing boards, but as a pilot I wouldn't touch a ride-sharing board because of exactly what you say, that the FAA would likely look at that as a Part 135 (charter) operation, my insurance may not be valid, my certificate would be at risk, etc. all for a few hundred bucks in shared costs. No thanks.

It's perfectly legal for me to fly 3 buddies down to Atlantic City and have each of us pay 25% of the direct cost for the flight. Let's say that was $100pp. Perfectly legal by FAR 61.113(c). [http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text- idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div8&view=te...](http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text- idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168&idno=14)

IMO, it's not OK for me to post on a ride board: "Fly to AC this weekend with me. $100 per person."

It's a grey area, I admit, but I wouldn't touch it, and I would recommend against someone building a startup to do just that without qualified legal counsel first. (and if they say "it's ok!", I'm not sure they're qualified... ;) )

<comment><USER23> It's a very thorny area, and not one that I'd want to get involved in either. The FAA also has the concept of a "Common Purpose" to the flight. By my non- lawyer reading of this, it would be illegal for a private pilot to even have a casual conversation with someone, discover that they're going to the same city, and split the expenses. They have to be say, all going on the same vacation together. I believe that the intention of this is to avoid people flying with private pilots that they don't personally know and have the opportunity to evaluate their general judgment.

<comment><USER24> Yes, it's a good idea to be wary. As with most regulations, you'll get by with it as long as nothing goes wrong. The problem is that there are a lot of things that can go wrong.

A few years ago, I read about a case involving a friendly fellow (private pilot) who received a call from his neighbor in the night about a sick relative. The two were friends, so the pilot offered to take the neighbor by plane to save time. The neighbor asked if he could pay to help offset the expenses, and the pilot said that the only thing legal would be to share fuel expenses (split 50/50). At this point everything seemed fine. However, the neighbor wasn't accustomed to the high cost of fuel in aviation and decided to check if the cost was reasonably calculated. Since he didn't want to appear accusatory, he called someone he thought would know, and this happened to be the FAA.

The FAA saw this as him asking about the cost of the flight, involved themselves, and ruled that this flight did not meet the "Common Purpose" criteria, and it ultimately ended in an enforcement action.

Here is a link to an FAA letter on the subject of ride boards. Unfortunately, it doesn't bring a lot of concrete clarity, but it definitely makes it clear that there it would be easy to cross the line with these:

[http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20956](http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20956)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> 13 MPG is surprisingly good, I always thought it was much, much less.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, its like an SUV but twice as fast.

<comment><USER26> Perhaps 3-5x as fast in terms of time because you don't have to stop at red lights and you can take the "as the crow flies" path instead of zig-zagging. Pretty sweet deal for $30k!

<comment><USER27> True, but it takes around 45 minutes to prepare a plane for flight and about 20 minutes to put it away. Also, you have to drive to and from the airport. Planes are incredible, but you have to fly pretty far before they're a timesaver.

<comment><USER28> Where did those numbers come from? Preflight and run-up can be done in 20 minutes once you've done it many times and securing after a flight is as simple as turning everything off and pushing the plane in the hanger or parking on the pad. That's maybe 10 minutes at most.

The only really time consuming part would be making and filing a flight plan. If you've done the route multiple times, you already have the flight plan and if you're operating under VFR (visual flight rules), you don't need to open/close it.

Source: I'm currently a student pilot and have done this process many times.

<comment><USER27> My parents are both pilots. The numbers are just my estimates from having flown with them a bunch. Maybe my numbers are a little high, but I think I'd stand by them.

There's always a bunch of dealing with cranking open the hanger door with the winch, dragging the plane out, checking that there is no water in the fuel (both tanks), transferring the stuff you're bringing with you from the car to the plane, getting into the seatbelt, plugging in the headsets and checking that they're all working, talking to the tower, taxiing out to the runway, waiting for a plane or two to take off, and then actually taking off.

Anyway, have fun flying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> > _I don 't need to file a flight plan, I just go_

Always (ALWAYS) file† a flight plan, and _stick to it_. If (when) something happens this will save you. Countless experienced pilots went on their own, had a trivial issue, landed at various vertical velocities and died because they were known to be missing but no clue where to be searched for. Also a proper flight plan includes _timestamps_ , because it is not just a matter of position in space. Don't assume people will know, make sure of it.

BTW this is not just valid for airplanes but for any remote adventure you're undertaking, even on foot. A bruised ankle can mean death in remote areas.

† although preferable, it might not be to an official/local authority but to whoever cares enough for you to be trusted with your life.

</comment><comment><USER30> There are a couple of websites for airplane pooling around: [http://www.skypool.com/](http://www.skypool.com/)

Like ridesharing / carpooling, just with airplanes. They are clearly not as successful as the car variant, but when flight destinations / times match they might offer a little adventure on the route (and one could avoid some of the traffic jams around the Bay Area).

<comment><AUTHOR> There are a lot of legal land mines with operations like this.

The FAA separates flight operations along a couple of subtle lines that make the difference between a commercial and private operation. As soon as a private pilot says to the general public "I am flying from here to there on this day and it will cost this much to come." you are now "holding out" as the FAA puts it. This requires you to be a commercial pilot flying under part 135 of the FARs as opposed to the more relaxed part 91 (general aviation).

<comment><USER31> > _This requires you to be a commercial pilot flying under part 135 of the > FARs as opposed to the more relaxed part 91 (general aviation)._

This is something I plan to do if/when I burn out on programming. Though I guess there is always the saying: "how do you become a millionaire?" "become a billionaire and start an airline."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Hey, I own your plane's sister (N8550W).

I'm surprised you didn't mention "Can you fly at night?" That's one I always get.

<comment><USER33> And what's the answer? :)

<comment><USER32> Opps, sorry.. guess it would have been good to actually answer the question.

Any private pilot can fly at night. There is a newer class of license called sport pilot that does impose restrictions on night flight (and quite a few other restrictions), but just about all pilots can fly at night.

I'm really confused by why people think it would not be ok to fly at night though. Just about everyone I've told that I'm a pilot asks about it though, so it's a big misconception somewhere. I always follow up with "Why do you think it wouldn't be ok?", but no-one's really been able to articulate why they thought that.

<comment><USER34> Flying at night without an instrument rating in some areas is pretty sketchy to be fair. More than one person has died by losing track of where the ground is and where it isn't. In much of Europe you actually do need an instrument rating to fly at night.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> "Never feel sorry for a man who owns a plane." -Charles Morse, "The Edge" (1997)

<comment><USER36> Charles Lindbergh, man. They STOLE and KILLED his BABY.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> How much red tape is there if one wants to cross an international border?

<comment><USER38> Generally, not much.

You need to file a flight plan, which is essentially just telling the ATC where you're going, and where you're coming from. The flight plan is also useful in case you get into trouble, since it contains the identifying information for your plane, the number of people on board, and for instance the safety equipment on board. So if you crash, the search-and-rescue people know what to expect.

Depending on the system the place you're flying to uses, filing the plan might be filling a web form. At least in Finland you could also do that via a phone call or with radio.

If there are customs and passport formalities between the countries you travel to, you will need to taxi your plane to a 'customs control' parking lot on the airport so that the customs people can check it. On some small airports this may require alerting them ahead of time so that they'll actually be there.

You probably also have to have a radio and a transponder on the airplane.

Between some countries, like the EU/Schengen area, flying between countries is pretty much the same as flying inside a country. So the requirements mostly depend on airspace restrictions in the area you fly. Between other countries things may vary. For example, back then I was told that it is quite impossible to fly from Finland to Russia since there was essentially no GA in Russia.

(disclaimer: it has been nearly 10 years since I flew last time, so some of this may be incorrect or outdated)

<comment><USER39> > since there was essentially no GA in Russia.

Other than Mathias Rust?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I've been toying with the idea of getting my pilot's license (eventually) partially for the sake of avoiding the TSA when I actually have to travel. What I'm curious about is how difficult/expensive it is to rent a plane that can fly further than stated in the article? (say, TX to CA, for instance) I imagine it wouldn't make much sense to buy a huge cross-country jet for the occasional long trips, although I am kind of surprised it's only ~$30k for a smaller one!

<comment><USER14> I think renting such a plane would be difficult, but there are home-built airplanes with ranges over 1000 miles. You need a big bladder to go that far, though...

<comment><USER40> Really? I've heard it should be pretty easy, and that unless you're planning to fly often, renting is by far the best way to go (aside from just taking the airlines). Then again, my sources might not be all that knowledgable!

<comment><USER22> Renting is tough to use airplanes to take purposeful trips.

Flight schools (the overwhelming source of rental airplanes) don't want you taking their plane for 9 days (two weekends and the week in-between) and flying it 3-hours each way, or 6 total hours of rental for 9 days where they can't rent it to anyone else.

The typical minimum is 3 hours per day away from base.

Before I bought my twin-engine airplane, I wanted to have 50 hours of multi- engine time (to make insurance more affordable), and I rented a flight school twin to build that time, including some trips.

Because it was a twin (and therefore not in as high-demand), I was able to negotiate a 2-hour daily minimum, but that meant for long trips like Thanksgiving and Christmas, I had a lot of "extra hours" that I was going to have to pay for anyway, so I'd take side trips to fly off those hours (and to go visit used airplanes that I was considering purchasing).

It is also virtually impossible to decide "Hey, the weather looks good this weekend; I'd like to rent a plane all weekend and go to XYZ." The plane will be booked at some point during that weekend.

If you want to use an (non-airline, non-owned) airplane for travel, you want to join a partnership or a small club, not rent from flight schools. (This will be vastly cheaper than sole ownership, as you could imagine.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Don't get me wrong but I do not get what's so exciting about flying yourself or owning a plane. Flying is for getting from point A to B. Flying just for fun missing any purpose might be fun the first couple of times but then it's like driving a bus from A to A.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sex is for making children. I don't get why anyone would enjoy it more than once.

Because you are flying in the air. In a machine. Above the ground. Like a god.

<comment> bulte-rs True, but do this for 200 hours... and you're out of options of new stuff to try. Then you try a bigger/better plane and/or more extreme manouvres.

Same as with sex: when you're bored with the regular stuff: try new manouvres or a new partner ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> A bit more info on the SFO question: [http://www.quora.com/How-difficult-or- unusual-would-it-be-to...](http://www.quora.com/How-difficult-or-unusual- would-it-be-to-land-a-Cessna-172-at-SFO)

</comment><comment><USER43> The first time I flew in a plane, I never Landed..because I parachuted out, using the 'old 18'ft Army round parachute'pulled both toggles down the whole way 5+min descent...great fun!

</comment><comment><USER44> The most startling thing about this to me was how much costs have gone up.

In 1990-91 I was working on my Private Pilot's license. I lost interest around 38 hours or so and never finished, but it was fun while it lasted. Last flight was my long solo cross-country. Costs were around $50/hr for a Cessna 152 and about $45/hour for the instructor. This was flying out of BDR in southwestern CT. Looks like prices are averaging more than double now. Whew!

</comment><comment><USER45> Is there a site where you can find other people that want to fly from somewhere specific too somewhere specific to share fuel costs with? I'd love to go up in a private plane for a few hours if it only cost me $200 or less.

<comment><USER46> [http://jetsuite.com/suitedeal](http://jetsuite.com/suitedeal)

They hire out the return legs for trips which are empty

edit: The prices quoted are for the whole plane, all 4 seats so usually about 150$ each

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> wow. Americans and Canadians actually spell it, as well as say it, "airplane". weird.

(mumble mumble aeroplane mumble)

</comment><comment><USER48> still wondering if today you can build a cheap airplane that just burns less fuel...

<comment><USER14> Building your own airplane is possible and actually quite common. There are kits for anything from one-seaters with open cockpit to pressurized turboprops.

[http://eaa.org/homebuilders/](http://eaa.org/homebuilders/)

<comment><USER48> No I meant like newer generation planes with more efficient engines, lighter, more aerodynamic, etc.

I'm not sure if current airplane designs are as good as they can...

<comment><USER14> True, engine efficiency is kind of flat-lined. Turbines aren't efficient for most GA operations, but there are new diesel aviation engines coming online.

Aerodynamically, I don't know about big gains. Something like a Lancair Legacy is pretty low drag. You can make lower-drag planes, but that typically comes with much higher stall/takeoff/landing speeds that make the plane harder to fly and _much_ less safe in the event of a forced landing.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Hot Girl Effect: A Month Proving It - <AUTHOR> http://sirdg.com/2011/01/the-hot-girl-effect-a-month-proving-it-2/

<comment><USER2> Most people are nice. Most people are glad to help. Most people don't like wasting their time. Most people don't want to be taken advantage of.

Given those conditions I think this article makes good sense. Approaching people with those conditions in mind usually has good results. Most people are happy to give advice because it is free [lawyer joke here] and the giver feels like they are helping. It is much harder to ask for money because the giver is likely to have a greater sense of being taken advantage of.

</comment><comment><USER3> The hardest part is really finding the courage and right strategy to approach these people. I've done it. And you are right. Many will talk. But the hardest part for me was working through my own personal discomfort and putting myself in a frame of mind to think it was "realistic" to get a response. (oh and good work with the title)

</comment><comment><USER4> Hmm, I wonder if the "hot girl" analogy breaks up, i.e. he should also test trying to strike a conversation with random beautiful women.</comment>